Traffic signal

[jakeroot]

Would anyone care to try and identify the manufacturer of this yet-to-be-activated signal?

https://goo.gl/maps/xUCzbdi4QWav2GMe8

(Future signal for off-ramp, BC-1 @ Mountain Hwy)

[steviep24]

i came across these signals in downtown Buffalo, NY today. These are not that old but have guy wires on the mast arms for some reason.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9022056,-78.8706533,3a,75y,275.48h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sG3JC0u_HrpxOLHZpkVbFtA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9022132,-78.8711792,3a,75y,261.77h,99.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svR5MrkdwkB9hj6-fdgWbZQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0

Most signals in Buffalo use straight mast arms without the guy wire supports or are on span wire.

EDIT: After looking at old Google Steetview these were installed sometime after 2007.

[jakeroot]

i came across these signals in downtown Buffalo, NY today. These are not that old but have guy wires on the mast arms for some reason.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9022056,-78.8706533,3a,75y,275.48h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sG3JC0u_HrpxOLHZpkVbFtA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9022132,-78.8711792,3a,75y,261.77h,99.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svR5MrkdwkB9hj6-fdgWbZQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0

Most signals in Buffalo use straight mast arms without the guy wire supports or are on span wire.

EDIT: After looking at old Google Steetview these were installed sometime after 2007.

Now that's interesting. It's hard to believe either of the main possibilities: that, A) they dusted off an old guy-wire standard for an historic look (who would really have any idea that a guy-wire is historic?), or, B) it was installed because it was the best option available.

Of course, it's possible an NYC engineer ended up in Buffalo, and insisted on this design for some reason. But it's not like they have anything in common with the traditional NYC guy-wire setup, besides the guy-wire itself. It's not like he just popped downstate, stole some plans, and came back.

Alas, it could be that the guy-wire is actually not that old of a standard, and I'm overthinking all of this?

[steviep24]

i came across these signals in downtown Buffalo, NY today. These are not that old but have guy wires on the mast arms for some reason.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9022056,-78.8706533,3a,75y,275.48h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sG3JC0u_HrpxOLHZpkVbFtA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9022132,-78.8711792,3a,75y,261.77h,99.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svR5MrkdwkB9hj6-fdgWbZQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0

Most signals in Buffalo use straight mast arms without the guy wire supports or are on span wire.

EDIT: After looking at old Google Steetview these were installed sometime after 2007.

Now that's interesting. It's hard to believe either of the main possibilities: that, A) they dusted off an old guy-wire standard for an historic look (who would really have any idea that a guy-wire is historic?), or, B) it was installed because it was the best option available.

Of course, it's possible an NYC engineer ended up in Buffalo, and insisted on this design for some reason. But it's not like they have anything in common with the traditional NYC guy-wire setup, besides the guy-wire itself. It's not like he just popped downstate, stole some plans, and came back.

Alas, it could be that the guy-wire is actually not that old of a standard, and I'm overthinking all of this?

It appears they went for a vintage look here. Also, the first one I linked has a bike signal phase.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9022109,-78.8710477,3a,37.5y,203.02h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spT8k-m4SvgIbNXtoc-gvew!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0

[jakeroot]

It appears they went for a vintage look here. Also, the first one I linked has a bike signal phase.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9022109,-78.8710477,3a,37.5y,203.02h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spT8k-m4SvgIbNXtoc-gvew!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0

Probably a vintage look. It just surprises me that those in charge would think anyone would be able to tell the difference. I think people associate more complex-looking structures with vintage looks, but these guy-wire mast arms really don't look that much more complex.

I like the contraflow cycle lane. Very nice.

[Big John]

It appears they went for a vintage look here. Also, the first one I linked has a bike signal phase.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9022109,-78.8710477,3a,37.5y,203.02h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spT8k-m4SvgIbNXtoc-gvew!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0

It is missing the bicycle signal sign which is required in the 2013 MUTCD interim approval.

[jakeroot]

It appears they went for a vintage look here. Also, the first one I linked has a bike signal phase.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9022109,-78.8710477,3a,37.5y,203.02h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spT8k-m4SvgIbNXtoc-gvew!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0

It is missing the bicycle signal sign which is required in the 2013 MUTCD interim approval.

How long before that requirement gets tossed? Seems obvious to me that bike shapes are for bikes. Same way that arrows are for turns. Should be intuitive enough.

[mrsman]

Here's an interesting signal in Washington DC.  12th and "C" Streets, NW: (pictured southbound)

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8936836,-77.0281331,3a,75y,192.79h,74.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4Fh5TlakHAT6FOqSdIxh3A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0

The signal itself is pretty standard for some of the newer placements within DC.  Pole mounted signals, with very short straight mast arms.  "C" Street, no longer exists over here, as the IRS and EPA buildings were built in the 1930's.  To the east (left), there is still a relatively active driveway to serve deliveries to the Trump Hotel (and possibly to the IRS as well).  To the west (right), there is no street at all.  In essence this is a short T-intersection, with "C" only serving to the east*, and no longer serving thru traffic to any extent.

But what is odd about this, is that even though there is a little traffic to the east (mainly delivery trucks), there has been no vehicular traffic at all to the west for over 80 years.  Yet, if you look closely, you can see that there are three signal faces that face the west (two far side and one near side).  This is really odd, as no vehicle will ever face those signals (or have faced them in 80 years) and there are pedestrian signals present at the legal crossing on the north side of "C".

In contrast, the nearby signal at Pennsylvania and 13th, also a T-interchange, does not have vehicle signals facing the closed side of the T-intersection. (And this one might make a good argument for a vehicular signal as the gate is sometimes opened up to let vehicles through.) Don't know the exact year this was permanently closed, but 13th was open as a street a lot more recently than C.  Prior to the construction of the Reagan building, this was a big parking lot and there was a lot of traffic that came in and out from that intersection.  13th continues as a driveway (due to pylons closed to all vehicles except for deliveries) all the way to Constitution.

13th and Penn:  https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8953641,-77.0296807,3a,75y,344.24h,80.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0fUMt9R98pmthnz_ajm6Nw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0

"13th" and Constitution, From 2009:  https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8921438,-77.0297733,3a,75y,356.38h,87.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEd5U5bdqoFllrjgjkIbQKg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0


* At some point, more recent than the construction of the IRS building, traffic could go east on C to 11th toward Pennsylvania.  This was stopped when they constructed the "pavilion" adjacent to the IRS building.  (Don't know the exact year, but I believe it was in the 1990's.).  I have seen no recent record of C existing west of 12th.

EPA building information:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Jefferson_Clinton_Federal_Building

[roadfro]

It appears they went for a vintage look here. Also, the first one I linked has a bike signal phase.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9022109,-78.8710477,3a,37.5y,203.02h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spT8k-m4SvgIbNXtoc-gvew!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0

It is missing the bicycle signal sign which is required in the 2013 MUTCD interim approval.

How long before that requirement gets tossed? Seems obvious to me that bike shapes are for bikes. Same way that arrows are for turns. Should be intuitive enough.

I think the bike signal sign is required because the green indication could be green arrow(s), depending on implementation and phasing. So the requirement for a sign is likely to stay in effect until they can somehow legibly combine a bike symbol and an arrow into a single indication...

[djlynch]

I think the bike signal sign is required because the green indication could be green arrow(s), depending on implementation and phasing. So the requirement for a sign is likely to stay in effect until they can somehow legibly combine a bike symbol and an arrow into a single indication...

Didn't even have to shrink the bike symbol to make this work. The arrow would need to be about 10% shorter than what's seen here for "straight ahead", but it comes close to working for everything. A good designer could probably make the arrow shape an adjustable piece within the larger unit.

[roadfro]

I think the bike signal sign is required because the green indication could be green arrow(s), depending on implementation and phasing. So the requirement for a sign is likely to stay in effect until they can somehow legibly combine a bike symbol and an arrow into a single indication...

Didn't even have to shrink the bike symbol to make this work. The arrow would need to be about 10% shorter than what's seen here for "straight ahead", but it comes close to working for everything. A good designer could probably make the arrow shape an adjustable piece within the larger unit.

You used a sign arrow style instead of a traffic signal style arrow, which have different layouts...

To implement something like this would need official MUTCD experimentation, but I'd be in favor of such if it meant eliminating the bike signal sign.

[jeffandnicole]

I think the bike signal sign is required because the green indication could be green arrow(s), depending on implementation and phasing. So the requirement for a sign is likely to stay in effect until they can somehow legibly combine a bike symbol and an arrow into a single indication...

Didn't even have to shrink the bike symbol to make this work. The arrow would need to be about 10% shorter than what's seen here for "straight ahead", but it comes close to working for everything. A good designer could probably make the arrow shape an adjustable piece within the larger unit.

You used a sign arrow style instead of a traffic signal style arrow, which have different layouts...

To implement something like this would need official MUTCD experimentation, but I'd be in favor of such if it meant eliminating the bike signal sign.

The biggest issue would be the size of the images in the lenses. From over 50 feet away, both the arrow and the bicycle would be smaller than if they were in an 8" lense...which aren't used due to their smaller size.

Similar to a "Left Turn Signal" sign, a "Bicycle Signal" sign could be used, along with louvers or programmable sight line lenses, so the bike signal can only be readily seen by those in the bike lanes.

[djlynch]

You used a sign arrow style instead of a traffic signal style arrow, which have different layouts...

To implement something like this would need official MUTCD experimentation, but I'd be in favor of such if it meant eliminating the bike signal sign.

I'm aware, but I also think that a smaller-than-typical signal style arrow wouldn't be as legible as the sign arrow at a distance. IMO, even just a triangle would be enough. And if sign arrows are apparently close enough to the real thing for the U-turn signals a few posts back...

The biggest issue would be the size of the images in the lenses. From over 50 feet away, both the arrow and the bicycle would be smaller than if they were in an 8" lense...which aren't used due to their smaller size.

The symbol is as close to the same size relative to the diameter of the lens as I could manage when tracing it from the MUTCD interim approval document. There's a significant amount of space on all sides because the symbol is wider than it is tall and the widest point on the symbol is well below the widest point on the lens.

I also think that the legibility of the symbol itself could be dramatically improved with some simplification and heavier lines. I think it's copied from the Standard Highway Signs design and it's way too detailed and has too much negative space for this application. I think I've seen a version on some lights that's just two circles and a triangle symbolizing the frame.

[jakeroot]

From over 50 feet away, both the arrow and the bicycle would be smaller than if they were in an 8" lense...which aren't used due to their smaller size.

8-inch signals are still used, just not so much in the US. Still very common in BC, where they are the predominant lens for post-mounted signals. They still have applications. For bikes, they're all that's needed.



Do note that near-side bike signals, which I've seen in Seattle pretty regularly, are tiny lenses. These combo bike/arrow signals would be about the same size. Plus, most bike signals, at least in Seattle, are rarely larger than 8 inches. Early ones were 12 inch, but they realized it was unnecessary, and were more often mistaken for regular signals (even with signage). The smaller signals would be more in-context with cycling in general (i.e. designed for slower approach speeds).

[roadman65]

Here is a FLYA on US 59 in Marshall, TX with a LED board lit up with the flashing arrow to inform the ignorant motorist what its purpose is.

[MCRoads]

I finally got a traffic light, bonus points because its green, my favorite color!

Imgur link is here in case the vid breaks because of the forum.

Edit: Mods, please fix this, if you can, it is indeed not showing up.

[CJResotko]

Maple City, MI: https://youtu.be/8tuJdm510iM
Stanwood, MI: https://youtu.be/xaYjo1G6sdk
Mansfield, OH: https://youtu.be/FYGgN2lHXHQ

[steviep24]

Here's something rare for New York State. Curved CALTRANS style mast arms.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2204312,-78.3869743,3a,75y,95.55h,91.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shqUw-TKfmkVCZd7TKXtEzw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0

EDIT: Also, in typical NYSDOT fashion it's a sloppy installation.

[RestrictOnTheHanger]

Looks decent, except for the oversized arms.

[SignBridge]

NYSDOT Region-10 on Long Island is now installing a lot of curved mast-arms where they mostly used diagonal-span wire for many years. But as the above poster said, they tend to be very gawky looking. Usually diagonal span, and very fat curved mast-arms; heads mounted using standard astro-brackets which do look sloppy on curved arms. They're building a couple of those now on NY 107 in Hicksville.

Nassau County DPW by comparison builds very neat looking mast-arm installations using their own hardware, standard small-diameter pipe with curved elbow fittings also usually in a diagonal span.

[RestrictOnTheHanger]

NYSDOT Region-10 on Long Island is now installing a lot of curved mast-arms where they mostly used diagonal-span wire for many years. But as the above poster said, they tend to be very gawky looking. Usually diagonal span, and very fat curved mast-arms; heads mounted using standard astro-brackets which do look sloppy on curved arms. They're building a couple of those now on NY 107 in Hicksville.

Nassau County DPW by contrast builds very neat looking mast-arm installations using their own hardware, standard small-diameter pipe with curved elbow fittings also usually in a diagonal span.

I agree with signbridge.

See an example below. This was a new installation where there was never one before. Inconsistent mounting styles, mounts with stubs, longer than needed arms, ugh

https://maps.app.goo.gl/VhWwk69xRa9WLaVCA

Compared to a span wire installation from around the same time. Clean setup except for a missing backplate or two

https://maps.app.goo.gl/WnC9EA5nAJzhh55W9

And earlier mast arm NYSDOT installation in Queens

https://maps.app.goo.gl/DTJAV5fSv1epvVoM9


NYSDOT should stick to span wire or get their act together when putting in mast arms.

[SignBridge]

Yes, interestingly NYS DOT's span wire installations (and Nassau County DPW's too) are generally well built with a good quality appearance, much more so than that seen in some other states. Except as the previous poster noted, for their cheezy quality backplates many of which crack, break off and disappear after a few years of service.

[jakeroot]

I've never quite understood these traffic lights:

https://goo.gl/maps/jSm3TmzoebUx8Jep7

Red arrow on top, a bottom green arrow, a yellow arrow somewhere in the middle, and then two more bulbs for who knows what. The accompanying overhead signal is a three-arrow protected-only left turn.

There are several of these along WA-99 in the Lynnwood/South Everett area.

[Big John]

^^ Could ir be a former protected-permissive signal converted to a protected-only signal and they were too cheap to change the signal head?

[jakeroot]

^^ Could it be a former protected-permissive signal converted to a protected-only signal and they were too cheap to change the signal head?

That seems most likely, but left-side green orb signals are extremely rare in the Seattle area. Probably more now than ever before, and they're still rare. The overhead signals look pretty old, so those 5-section towers must be ancient.

Left side all-arrow signals are pretty common, but WSDOT instituted a rule a long time ago not to use green orbs on the left pole at intersections, because they felt drivers may mistake it for a protected left. So permissive left turn setups with green orbs on the far left (like how the signal in my link would normally work) are virtually unheard of in WA outside of Spokane. It's almost like they wanted to use a permissive left at this intersection, but changed their mind at the last second.